Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause 267
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals
Yes.
surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.
What have you submitted lately?
I'm deeply concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights.
There, fixed that for ya - just 6 words too many....
Hey, I'm deeply concerned too (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm deeply concerned that the court is being the RIAA's pawn and making orders that have no other purpose than to protect a slimy group of companies' public image...
Listen to the MP3's (Score:5, Insightful)
Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.
It's a horrible attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark about this whole ordeal.
Kind of expected (Score:5, Insightful)
The professor had to expect something like this. It's like playing chess. He'll respond with his next move, etc...
It's interesting to watch this and the Camara case unfold. Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.
Eccentricities will get you no where (Score:3, Insightful)
These professors (this one and the city of heroes professor) are bypassing rules to basically focus on the x,y, or z. There are rules for engaging 2 or more people, societies and most definitely the judicial systems. Trying to focus on the abstract with out playing by the rules gets you kicked out of the game. It's no real loss when you get kicked out of an MMO by the player base you can move on.
However, when you mess up a court case you start setting precedents, and screwing a lot more people than yourself and your client. Pissing off a judge which this Prof. has done before is not going to bode well. Maybe he should stick to academia.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, "yes".
You can see from this article and the pressure that's being put on Professor Nesson to keep the proceedings secret that the RIAA has reasons to keep what it's doing out of the media.
That's the best reason I can think of for making sure it gets in the media at every opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system or corporate media, both of whom are heavily influenced by corporate money, to tell us what's going on.
Maybe you think the most important thing we can read about on Slashdot is the latest patches for the iPhone, but what's happening in our courts right now is going to have a much greater impact on our lives and use of technology for years to come.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.
I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you know, the RIAAs crimes do not go away, just because you find them less interesting with time.
I bet when the Nazis rose in Germany, you would also stated that there would be too much stories about the NSDAP in the news.
Ooh, it bores you? Well, then we must stop. Because your entertainment is the most important thing on the planet! Nothing can come between you and it.
How rude of some people, to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom and of the Internet as we know it.
Stop whining! If you want to stop those stories, DO SOMETHING against the RIAA!
Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"
Re:I'm deeply concerned (Score:1, Insightful)
People with power really don't like to be disobeyed.
Whether or not Nesson can come up with some good reasons for his actions, the fact remains that he pissed off a powerful person. He has definitely picked a fight, and better be ready to start swinging, because he is looking at a pretty severe beat-down.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eccentricities will get you no where (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not excusing the professor(s) conduct in this matter, but I am not excusing a judge who should be putting his/her bias in the closet next to the raincoats either. Judges who act with willful contempt for either party (or favor... take the DeCSS case as an example) in a case should be thrown off the bench (preferably from a great distance up...) Bias has no purpose in black robes... Justice is blind.... and it should be a Vulcan.
Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly. DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...
What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.
Shooting yourself in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."
The many woes of the geek in court:
1 The lawyer who tells him what only what he wants to hear.
2 The pro bono lawyer with an axe to grind:
"You too can become a poster child for the EFF!"
3 The law professor who thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.
4 The defendant who also thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.
5 The lawyer with an unholy gift for pissing off a judge.
6 The defendant who takes the stand.
Only a geek could unleash such a steaming pile of shit - and never catch a whiff of it. "Tar and feathers ain't good enough for him, boys!"
7 The lawyer who ups the stakes each time he loses a round. The defendant who comes along for the ride.
The Supreme Court accepts perhaps 150 cases a year for oral argument. You just might make the cut.
You might also be the big winner in the tri-state lotto.
I'm really curious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Insightful)
An even better question is: do we really need copyright?
Fair question, but I think the short answer is yes. But the point of copyright protection was once to protect creators from abuses by big business. In the time of Goethe, for instance, if he did not have family money and wealthy patrons, his writing would not have supported him. When he finished a book, it would get one good printing, and then all the feeder-level publishers would buy one copy each, and make copies themselves. All works would immediately become commodities.
A little more recently, you can look to artists like Little Richard, whose songs were used in Disney films, commercials, TV shows, over and over and over, without any payment to him, because ASCAP wasn't there to enforce copyright protections.
Metallica aside, most artists aren't worried about individuals pirating their music. Hell, I'd be thrilled if someone decided that my old band's music [dimspace.com] was awesome and it hit number one on the torrents. That would mean that my art touched people. But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.
My feeling is that copyright is necessary, but it's being abused, and the abusers are working hard to limit--even destroy--any "fair use" cases that we've taken for granted.
Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I love the general principal of pissing off judges...why is this idiot pissing off the judge???
Because there's no reason this proceeding should be kept private. It's about copyright infringement, where enforcement should be a public issue -- especially when damages are being issued at those who break copyrights. Can you IMAGINE living in a world where you can get sued for copyright infringement and not let anyone know what you infringed, how you infringed, or what the reasoning was behind the order? How is there sanity in that?
Lawyer: Sir, we have 13 recorded attempts of you singing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging. These are blatant copyright infringements and for each of these public performances, you face a fine of $80,000.
You: Lots of people sing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging, and they don't get sued!
Lawyer: Oh, thousands are getting sued for it. Now you'll have to agree not to discuss your case with anyone but your lawyer or you'll be spending jail time as well. We're willing to settle for $5,000. We take credit cards!
Copyright enforcement should never, ever be held behind closed doors unless at the request of the prosecuted in order to preserve their reputation if found innocent. I, personally, would be willing to spend jail time in order to make this point, if I had to. I would hope anyone who thinks themself an honest American would at least consider it.
Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much everyone DOES look evil, and properly so. Mostly because they care more about the approval of others than their own integrity, are petty, easily upset, manipulative, domineering towards those who are weaker than they but meek towards those who are stronger, and make excuses for doing things that they know are wrong if they want to do them badly enough. You can file all of that away under "not really leading your own life but instead being far too subject to outside influences which do not have your best interests at heart." It's evil, though it's not malicious as most people don't understand why this is wrong or the tremendous suffering it leads to and they think it's normal because it is common.
The way you said "treating opposing council, grumpy judges, and uppity clients like they're evil" reveals how normal people think this is. If you are not part of the problem I just summarized, then you treat everyone by the same standard. That standard is simple and also hard to explain but the basic idea is "if they force you to defend yourself in some way (i.e. legally in this case), then do it reasonably, without hesitation or malice, while regretting that things had to be that way. Otherwise, treat them with compassion and loving-kindness not because they do or don't deserve it, but because of who you are." The reason why returning evil for evil does not work is that it only increases the amount of evil in the world. The problem is that people can see how self-evident that is, and then they go and get the idea that being "good" means being a push-over or a doormat. There's a right way to stand up for yourself. You can do it while taking on none of the negative traits of those who made you do so.
Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct. The RIAA does indeed have at least some argument on the grounds that music piracy does actually happen, and that is why they have pursued legal action against so many people. The thing you might not have come to understand when you made your comment was that the RIAA will continue to blame piracy for all of their problems whether it really is happening or not. They have brought people to court that never used a computer, let alone downloaded anything. They can't seem to decide how much money they are losing every year from piracy, and every number I've ever seen looks outlandish and impossible; probably due to the fact that their model for determining damages involves things like 'possible downloads' as opposed to 'actual' ones. If every music file on the internet miraculously disappeared today, I can guarantee you tomorrow there will be a press release about how the RIAA believes music piracy has cost them trillions in revenue tomorrow, and now the pirates have moved to sneakernet which is something they can't track and they'll pay the media to demonize it as the next big piracy network without explaining what it actually is.
Simply put, they had a successful business model for decades and it fell apart completely but they believe they still have the right to receive all the money, and they won't stop at lying to the government or anyone else as long as it gets what they want.
Re:End It (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)
to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom
I suspect that a systematic deconstruction of our freedom would actually be quite boring.
Re:Too much detail (Score:1, Insightful)
Correction:
Justice may have been the intent when the system was created, but today it's all about enforcing laws. Frequently unjust laws, but laws nevertheless.
__________
The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws.
-- Cornelius Tacitus
Re:What an idiot! (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy doesn't have enough sense to anonymously leak the recordings to the web so he can't be sanctioned for them, and he has the nerve to call himself a professor?
Congratulations.
You have now upped the ante to the point where you risk doing time for contempt of court -
your tenured professorship at Harvard Law is at stake -
and your license to practice is at stake.
You will also very likely have made such a wreckage of your client's case that he will have no option but to settle out of court.
Re:What an idiot! (Score:3, Insightful)
When did you last put your neck on the line for justice?
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Insightful)